Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. “A Mixed-Ligand Strategy to Modulate P3HT Regioregularity for High-Efficiency Solar Cells”
In view of Claim 1, Liu et al. discloses a composite material (Page 3079, Right Column, Lines 1-5 - P3HT:ZY-4Cl), comprising: a donor polymer (Page 3079, Right Column, Lines 1-5 - P3HT); and a non-fullerene acceptor (Page 3079, Right Column, Lines 1-5 - ZY-4CL), wherein a way ratio of donor polymer to non-fullerene acceptor is about 1:1 (Page 3079, Right Column, Lines 1-5 – “Each P3HT:ZY-4Cl…(1:1 by weight)), wherein the donor polymer and the non-fullerene acceptor are considered dispersed in one another as the materials are configured in a “blend” type bulk heterojunction configuration (Page 3079, Left Column, Lines 16-17 & See Abstract “blend films”).
In view of Claim 2, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Liu et al. discloses that the donor polymer is P3HT (Page 3079, Right Column, Lines 1-5 - P3HT).
In view of Claim 3, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Liu et al. discloses that the non-fullerene acceptor is Y6 (Page 3082, Left Column, 2nd Paragraph, Lines 1-4).
In view of Claim 4, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Liu et al. teaches that the non-fullerene acceptor is Y6 (Page 3082, Left Column, 2nd Paragraph, Lines 1-4).
In view of Claim 5, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Liu et al. teaches that the non-fullerene acceptor is a non-halogenated non-fullerene acceptor Y6 (Page 3082, Left Column, 2nd Paragraph, Lines 1-4).
In view of Claim 6, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Liu et al. teaches that the weight ratio of donor polymer to non-fullerene acceptor is about 1:1 (Page 3079, Right Column, Lines 1-5 – “Each P3HT:ZY-4Cl…(1:1 by weight)).
In view of Claim 7, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Liu et al. teaches that the weight ratio of donor polymer to non-fullerene acceptor is about 1:1, thus its considered that the donor polymer and donor acceptor are evenly dispersed in one another (Page 3079, Right Column, Lines 1-5 – “Each P3HT:ZY-4Cl…(1:1 by weight)).
In view of Claim 8, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Liu et al. teaches the same composite material layer as Applicant’s (See Instant Specification Page 1, starting at Brief Summary through Page 2, Lines 1-14), that being a bulk-heterojunction blend (Page 3079, Left Column, Lines 16-17 & See Abstract “blend films”) of P3HT:ZY-4Cl (Page 3079, Right Column, Lines 1-5 – “Each P3HT:ZY-4Cl…(1:1 by weight)”), wherein the non-fullerene acceptor ZY-4Cl corresponds to Y6 (Page 3082, Left Column, 2nd Paragraph, Lines 1-4).
Accordingly, Liu et al. teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for the composite material to be “a flexible film”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
In view of Claim 9, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Liu et al. teaches that the flexible film is a bulk heterojunction (Page 3079, Left Column, Lines 16-17 & See Abstract “blend films”).
In view of Claim 10, Liu et al. discloses a device (Page 3079, Right Column, Lines 1-5), comprising an organic photovoltaic layer comprising the composite material of claim 1 (Page 3079, Right Column, Lines 1-5 - P3HT:ZY-4Cl), a first electrode disposed on the OPV layer (Page 3079, Right Column, Lines 1-5 – Aluminum), a charge transport layer disposed under the OPV layer (Page 3079, Right Column, Lines 1-5 – PEDOT:PSS), a second electrode disposed under the charge transport layer (Page 3079, Right Column, Lines 1-5 – indium tin oxide); and wherein the charge transport layer is disposed between the second electrode and the OPV layer (Page 3079, Right Column, Lines 1-5 – ITO/PEDOT:PSS/P3HT:ZY-4CL).
In view of Claim 15, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. In regards to the limitation that, “the device is flexible”, Liu et al. teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for the device to be “flexible”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
In view of Claim 16, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Liu et al. teaches that the donor polymer is P3HT and the non-fullerene acceptor is Y6 (Page 3079, Right Column, Lines 1-5 – ITO/PEDOT:PSS/P3HT:ZY-4CL/PDINO/AL).
In regards to the limitations, “wherein the OPV exhibits a rectification range in a range of from 3.6 x 103 to 4 x 103, and wherein the device has a response time of 100 milliseconds (ms) or less when exposed to a 470 nanometer (nm) light pulse”, Liu et al. teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “wherein the OPV exhibits a rectification range in a range of from 3.6 x 103 to 4 x 103, and wherein the device has a response time of 100 milliseconds (ms) or less when exposed to a 470 nanometer (nm) light pulse”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. “A Mixed-Ligand Strategy to Modulate P3HT Regioregularity for High-Efficiency Solar Cells” in view of Anthopoulos et al. (US 2023/0022263 A1).
In view of Claim 11, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Liu et al. does not disclose a substrate on which the second electrode (ITO) is disposed, wherein the second electrode is disposed between the substrate and the charge transport layer.
Anthopoulos et al. discloses a substrate (Figs. 4A-B, Glass) on which a second electrode (Figs. 4A-B, ITO) is disposed between the substrate and a charge transport layer (Figs. 4A-B, ETL/HTL & Paragraph 0218). Anthopoulus et al. discloses that these layers and components can be combined in a variety of ways to afford organic photovoltaic cells to be illuminated with light from any side or surface (Paragraph 0131). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a substrate on which the second electrode is disposed such that the second electrode is disposed between the substrate and the charge transport layer as disclosed by Anthopoulos et al. in Liu et al. configuration for the advantage of being able to gather light from any side or surface of the device.
In view of Claim 13, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Liu et al. does not disclose that the charge transport layer disposed under the OPV layer is an electron transporting layer.
Anthopoulos et al. discloses a substrate (Figs. 4A, Glass) on which a second electrode (Figs. 4A, ITO) is disposed between the substrate and a charge transport layer (Figs. 4A, ETL & Paragraph 0218). Anthopoulus et al. discloses that these layers and components can be combined in a variety of ways to afford organic photovoltaic cells to be illuminated with light from any side or surface (Paragraph 0131). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to arrive at the charge transport layer disposed under the OPV layer is an electron transporting layer for the advantage of affording Liu et al. device to be illuminated with light from any side or surface.
In view of Claim 15, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Liu et al. does not explicitly teach that the device is flexible.
Anthopoulos et al. discloses organic photovoltaics are promising solar energy harvesting technology that are light weight and have mechanical flexibility and that this is considered an attractive attribute (Paragraph 0001). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to ensure that the device of Liu et al. has mechanical flexibility as this is considered an attractive attribute in regards to organic photovoltaics such as Liu et al. device.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. “A Mixed-Ligand Strategy to Modulate P3HT Regioregularity for High-Efficiency Solar Cells” in view of Anthopoulos et al. (US 2023/0022263 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2022/0231233 A1).
In view of Claim 12, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Liu et al. discloses that the second electrode comprises indium tin oxide (Page 3079, Right Column, Lines 1-5 – indium tin oxide) but not that the charge transport layer comprises SnO2 and the first electrode comprises silver, gold, or a combination thereof.
Anthopoulos et al. discloses that electrodes can comprise gold or aluminum and that they are considered suitable materials for cathode electrodes (Paragraph 0213). Accordingly, substituting aluminum for gold is substituting a known equivalent for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 II.
Huang et al. discloses that a charge transport layer is selected based on which the electrode is proximate and that may comprise SnO2 (Paragraph 0337). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the charge transport layer comprise SnO2 in Liu et al. device depending on the type of electrode material to which the charge transporting material layer is proximate.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. “A Mixed-Ligand Strategy to Modulate P3HT Regioregularity for High-Efficiency Solar Cells” in view of Anthopoulos et al. (US 2023/0022263 A1) in view of Yu et al. “Realization of high performance for PM6:Y6 based organic photovoltaic cells”.
In view of Claim 12, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Liu et al. discloses that the second electrode comprises indium tin oxide (Page 3079, Right Column, Lines 1-5 – indium tin oxide) but not that the charge transport layer comprises SnO2 and the first electrode comprises silver, gold, or a combination thereof.
Anthopoulos et al. discloses that electrodes can comprise gold or aluminum and that they are considered suitable materials for cathode electrodes (Paragraph 0213). Accordingly, substituting aluminum for gold is substituting a known equivalent for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 II.
Yu et al. teaches the use of a SnO2 charge transport layer (Table 3 SnO2). Yu et al. teaches that high PCE up to 16.1% was achieved when using SnO2 as a charge transport layer (Page 42, Left Column, Lines 1-16). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt Yu et al. charge transport layers in modified Liu et al. such that the charge transport layer is SnO2 as this specific material has shown high PCE.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. “A Mixed-Ligand Strategy to Modulate P3HT Regioregularity for High-Efficiency Solar Cells” in view of Ryu (US 2019/0301951 A1).
In view of Claim 17, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Liu et al. does not disclose that the device further comprise a layer comprising mechanoluminescent material, such that the mechanoluminescent material is disposed on and in direct physical contact with at least one of the first electrode, the OPV layer, the charge transport layer, and the second electrode, and the wherein the device is a sensor.
Ryu discloses an OPV analogous to Liu et al can be paired with a mechanoluminescent layer that can emit light in response to mechanical stimuli, e.g., acting as a sensor (Paragraph 0066). Ryu discloses that the mechanoluminescent layer is in direct contact with a PEDOT:PSS layer or other conductive film (Fig. 6, PEDOT:PSS conductive film – Paragraph 0067). Ryu discloses that when OPVs are paired with mechanoluminescent layers it creates a device that can sense catastrophic structural failures in structural systems (Paragraph 0003-0005). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have Liu et al. device comprise a mechanoluminescent material in direct contact with one of the conductive film layers of Liu et al. for the advantage of having a sensing device that can sense and prevent catastrophic structural failures in structural systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726